Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamic MaxBlockSize - 3 Byte Solution

From: "Hampus Sjöberg" <hampus.sjoberg@gmail•com>
To: Emil Engler <me@emilengler•com>,
	 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
	<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamic MaxBlockSize - 3 Byte Solution
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 17:08:43 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFMkqK9-8GRJWXgYOUHrQtApCQ0WW0beD1xr7+mbAQS6YXY65A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAL6iL8VwYVpFkZuExpk=7LKGTLxVdQODtZmHnaK4MR0J9McdVQ@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6044 bytes --]

> 1. We have Lightning and SegWit so thankfully we do not need to deal with
blocksizes anymore really.

Regardless of the current proposal in this email thread, just because we
have Lightning doesn't mean we don't ever have to increase the blocksize
again.
Even with Lightning there would be too many channel open and closes to be
able to handle million users without transaction fees going through the
roof.
I am advocating to keep the blocksize low right now, but I don't leave out
in increasing it in the future when we have a need for it, preferably via
an extension block (softfork).

Hampus

Den fre 8 nov. 2019 kl 15:44 skrev Emil Engler via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>:

> NACK!
> 1. We have Lightning and SegWit so thankfully we do not need to deal with
> blocksizes anymore really.
> 2. What if a reorg happens? Then it could generate huge problems at the
> validation.
>
> Correct me if I understood it wrong please.
>
> Greetings,
> Emil Engler
>
> Trevor Groves via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
> schrieb am Fr. 8. Nov. 2019 um 15:26:
>
>> Dynamic MaxBlockSize  - 3 Byte Solution
>> "DMBS"
>>
>> If
>> (Last TOTAL Block Trans fees)  >  (AVG (Last 100 Blocks Trans Fees))
>> AND
>> current MaxBlockSize  => 0.99 MB
>> AND
>> MaxBlockSize has not changed in 10 Blocks
>> ** see error catch below
>> Then
>> ON (Current Block #  + 9)  Set MaxBlockSize  = (MaxBlockSize x 1.1)
>> ELSE
>> AT (Current Block #  + 9)  Set MaxBlockSize  = (MaxBlockSize  / 1.1)
>> ELSEIF
>> (current MaxBlockSize  =< 0.99  or current MaxBlockSize > 6553.5 MB)
>> Null (no action taken)
>> **where 9 above represents the ActivateONBlock (software side) Variable
>>  -------------
>> We add this 3 Byte Variable Factor to the white space in the Current
>> Block.
>>
>> eg.  this 3 byte HEX    19000A
>> the first bit "1"  can be 1,2 or 0
>> 1  =  increase future block (9 blocks ahead)
>> 2  decrease future block  (9 blocks ahead)
>> 0    No Action (rules evaluate to null)
>> **where 9 above represents the ActivateONBlock (software side) Variable
>> --------------
>> The Second bit is a Global Variable "9" represents a countdown to the set
>> value action, placed to synchronize network forward  changes in "x" blocks.
>> software lowers value if evaluates to True a second time  and so on.
>> ("Count down" if you will)
>> the last 2 bytes represent  the globally accepted "MaxBlockSize"
>> Variable, and is distributed within each block moving forward in this
>> rightmost (2 byte) factor.  In this case above,
>> The variable portion  "000A" (32 Bit value) represents decimal value 10
>> being 1.0 MB block.
>> the decimal place is Always Assumed, and must be hard coded
>> Because this presents a  theoretical  Max limit of "FFFF"  or 6553.5 MB,
>> We would
>> have to add a last rule "only as a error catch"
>>  ** AND IF MaxBlockSize < 6553.5
>> ---
>> Increasing and decreasing
>> On Every Block mined or distributed, the software can run the above rule
>> set, Change the Variable and Distribute the next block " In Synchronized
>> fashion". The above rules when combined evaluate to a YES or NO, This
>> translates to a market reflection of increased system pressure or decreased
>> market pressure.   I think we can agree, at peak periods the system chokes
>> itself off with fees and this is always only temporarily.  So we can have
>> the block, analyse system demand dynamically, and adjust on a globally
>> agreed rule dynamically by market driven demand.
>> Considering the ruleset above also Decreases  the Block ONLY if its
>> greater than 0.99mb this brings size back to a competitive state /and size
>> once market demand pressures subside, yet achieves the smallest market
>> feasible block size while also maintaining all current rule sets.
>>  An attacker would have to affect all block fees over the last 16 hours
>> worth of transactions to affect a 10% max block size increase but then only
>> after waiting 1.5 hours, so long as nothing has changed in the last 1.5
>> hours and only for a limited amount of time. This approach also limits
>> bloat. This safety block window of 9 blocks provides a look forward and
>> look behind value, in turn provides the network time to synchronize.
>> 10 block sync window.  This, by design, also limits changes to one
>> change  every 3 hours (20 blocks), if there is a market pressure "STATE"
>> occurring.
>> My Question to the community is. Will our current Block accommodate the 3
>> Byte
>> Variable, Is solving the Scaling issue worth using the 3 Bytes of space?
>> I believe it is.
>> --
>> Software,  Will need  to Evaluate MaxBlockSize Variable, and
>> ActivateONBlock Variable from the most recent distributed blocks DMBS  3
>> byte value.
>> Run the rules , get the answer set the now known MaxBlockSize Var and
>> Propegate the "DMBS" value.
>>
>> As capacity limits are breached, I think the majority agree "we need to
>> agree".
>>
>> MaxBlockSize would provide a suitable middle ground and address concerns
>> in a dynamic fashion, without compromising  or changing  existing
>> security.
>>  Examples reflected in the blockchain 19000A   rules has evaluates to
>> true, increase expected in 9 blocks.1.0mb increases to 1.1mb
>> if true for 9 more blocks  MaxBlockSize Var becomes  18000A..
>> 17000A..,16000A ..and so on if  still true at 10000A var written becomes
>> 00000B when read from left to right,  0-no change, in 0 blocks current "
>> DMBS" value 000B or 1.1MB  and stays that way  00000B until MaxBlockSize
>> evaluates to "True" under a market pressure/ relief situation.
>> I hope this makes sense, I would appreciate some feedback.
>> TG
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7598 bytes --]